BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Managing Risks for Safer Cities Executive Summary COVER PHOTO Credit: Nicholas Kingston © 2010 Executive Summary T his document is the executive summary of the World Bank publication Building Regulation for Mobilizing building code regulations for risk reduction Resilience. The publication focuses on In the past 20 years, natural disasters have affected how the building regulation process can 4.4 billion people, claimed 1.3 million lives, and be enhanced in order to save lives and caused $2 trillion in economic losses.1 reduce destruction from disaster and chronic risks. Exceptional disaster events, along with chronic events such as individual building collapse and As part of the Sendai Framework for fires, disproportionately impact the poor and the Disaster Reduction 2015-2030 agenda, marginalized. In the last 30 years, over 80 percent2 the report calls upon the international of the total life years lost in disasters came from community to act now to pursue low- and middle-income countries, typically setting more effective approaches to land use back national economies by 5 to 120 percent of management and building regulation. gross domestic product (GDP). There is evidence To achieve this goal, it outlines an that disasters’ impact on GDP is 20 times higher integrated, programmatic approach for in developing countries than in industrial nations. building regulatory capacity, primarily These impacts pose a major threat to the World in vulnerable low and middle-income Bank Group’s goals of eradicating poverty and countries. boosting shared prosperity. 01 02 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE As the scale, frequency, and severity of natural Sendai Framework for hazards continue to rise, so will future expected losses in the built environment. The annual losses Disaster Risk Reduction 2015- resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, 2030 tsunamis, cyclones, and flooding are expected to increase from roughly $300 billion to $415 billion In March 2015, the Third UN World Conference by 2030.3 on Disaster Risk Reduction adopted the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, The international community has made significant making it the first major agreement of the post- progress in strengthening disaster preparedness, 2015 development agenda. The priorities of the response, and early warning systems. However, it has been less successful in effectively mitigating Sendai Framework for Action have ample references underlying risks in the pre-disaster context, to building and land use regulatory development, especially in low- and middle-income countries. and they consider implementation to be a key Nor has it been successful in addressing chronic element of disaster risk reduction. This agenda risk—indeed, governments rarely even record is evidence of a strong international consensus events such as building collapse and fires, let alone to expand the full potential of effective building cover the loss. regulation in reducing risks. This report advocates implementing the Sendai Framework for Action Building code implementation has a crucial role through a bold and coordinated international effort to play in disaster risk reduction (DRR), one that to reduce risks in the built environment. until recently has not received adequate attention. This report focuses on how building regulation can Report’s scope and target audience be enhanced to save lives and reduce destruction from both disasters and chronic risks. Notably, it This report is a resource to assist policy makers, supports a shift in focus from managing disasters to governments, private sector and donor entities in reducing underlying risks. leveraging good-practice building code regulation into effective strategies for reducing disaster risk Successful mechanisms of risk reduction and and chronic risk, thereby setting disaster-prone hazard adaptation in developed countries have countries on track toward effective reform. It relied in large part on effective and efficient provides practical recommendations and a review building regulatory systems, which have been of applicable innovations for a reform agenda. incrementally improved over time. In the past 10 Both of these components are based on a review years, high-income countries with more advanced of factors that have prevented building codes from building code systems experienced 47 percent of disasters globally, yet accounted for only 7 percent being an effective tool for disaster and chronic risk of disaster fatalities.4 reduction in developing countries. A comparison between the 2003 earthquakes in The report recognizes the significant Paso Robles, California, and Bam, Iran, further interdependency between land use management illustrates this pattern. The earthquakes had and building regulatory issues. However, its focus similar magnitudes and struck within three days is on building regulation and code implementation. of each other. However, the death toll was two in At the same time, the report highlights how closely Paso Robles as opposed to more than 40,000— land use management relates to effective building nearly half the city’s population—in Bam.5 code implementation. Executive SUMMARY To move from concept to action, the report of unregulated urbanization has vastly expanded outlines a proposed Building Regulation for global disaster risk. Resilience Program. This program offers a structure to involve and galvanize a wide range of partners The failure of regulatory policy and implementation with specific strengths and experiences to build in low- and middle-income countries has several a regulatory process applicable to all types of root causes. Poverty has been a major factor leading buildings. The strategic goal of the proposed to urban migration and a limiting factor in the program is to help reduce human and economic development of municipal services and regulatory losses by avoiding the creation of new risks and by capacity. This failure has been compounded by reducing existing risks in the built environment. other factors as well: Ineffective land use systems. Land use Why building regulation has /// /// systems have failed to limit settlements in not yet reduced disaster hazardous areas and served to exclude a large and chronic risk in low- and proportion of the urban population from legal land and housing markets. These factors dramatically middle-income countries increase urban disaster risks. Furthermore, in the absence of effective systems, cities in low-income The process of rural-urban migration in the countries have rapidly expanded into hazardous developing world over recent decades has taken territory without clear title or critically needed place largely in the absence of effective building infrastructure. or land use regulation. Without regulatory guidance, urban development has extended to Weaknesses in building code administration /// hazardous sites and resulted in the construction and institutional capacity. A fundamental /// of unsafe, vulnerable settlements. This process problem in low- and middle-income countries Photo credit: International Organization for Migration 03 04 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE is the lack of funding and support for building be accepted as a contribution to resilience. For regulation at the local level. The problem is usually example, dhajji dewari, an economical and culturally rooted in deeper challenges linked to income accepted form of construction in Northern levels and authority over taxation, as well as in Pakistan, can be modified to safely withstand constitutional and administrative structures. Many earthquake forces. In the aftermath of the 2005 local governments do not have adequate staff with earthquake, the region’s local building code did technical skills necessary to appropriately monitor not recognize this form of construction, which new construction. hampered official funding for dhajji dewari’s use in Insufficient legislative foundation. Incomplete /// /// housing reconstruction. national legislation has resulted in the failure to establish principles of regulatory implementation Dysfunctional regimes of building controls. /// /// or designate public and private responsibilities. Permitting and inspections services in developing Building regulation often remains unconnected economies are usually expensive, overly complex, with the larger ecosystem of civil, commercial, and and inefficient. Compliance with codes can criminal law. increase building costs, and these costs can act as a deterrent to meeting code requirements. In Unaffordable compliance costs for the poor. Mumbai, India, for example, the formal aggregate /// /// The process of designing and adopting appropriate building standards has frequently been a top- administrative fee for going through a tedious 27- down directive that does not sufficiently consult step planning and construction permitting process with stakeholders, including both private building is equivalent to 46 percent of the total construction professionals and local communities. This has cost. In Organisation for Economic Co-operation led countries to borrow unaffordable standards and Development (OECD) countries, however, from abroad. Thus, building codes in low-income the same process takes only 11 steps and accounts countries have often set the bar too high, creating for 1.7 percent of the total construction cost on dependency on imported building materials while average.6 stifling local innovation. Corruption and regulatory capture. /// /// Insufficient recognition of prevalent building Corruption in building code enforcement has /// practices. Incremental construction—the gradual been associated with extensive building failure /// step-by-step process through which owner-builders and loss of life in disasters. Recent statistical append or improve building components as evidence shows that 83 percent of all deaths funding, time, or materials become available—is a widespread informal practice. However, formal from earthquakes in the past three decades have systems of building codes almost never recognize occurred in countries considered most corrupt by this type of construction, widening the gap between Transparency International.7 Regulatory capture the formal and informal building sectors. in building code systems can considerably distort outcomes by reducing safety standards to benefit Post-disaster reconstruction projects have the regulated industry. Conversely, regulatory highlighted the fact that owner-builders in low- income settings are capable of integrating risk capture can also result in the increase of safety reduction into their traditional building practices. standards to unsustainable or unaffordable levels, The coping strategies they have developed should thus excluding local owners and builders. Executive SUMMARY The two key priorities of the report’s The essential recommendations are components of a building i. to stop the expansion of disaster and chronic regulatory framework risk in the siting and construction of new settlements; and This report identifies three basic components that form the core of any building code regulatory ii. to reduce disaster risk in vulnerable existing regime: a legal and administrative framework at the settlements. national level, a building code development and New construction with appropriate design can be maintenance process, and a set of implementation made disaster-resistant for a small percentage of mechanisms at the local level. construction cost, on the order of 5 to 10 percent.9 However, these core components of a building and The retrofit of existing vulnerable structures may land use regulatory framework do not function require major expenditure, in the range of 10 in a vacuum. In the developed world, regulatory to 50 percent of building value.10 Establishing capacity has evolved in parallel with a complex standards and implementation mechanisms for mix, or “ecology,” of supporting institutions. inspection of new construction provides a solid These institutions have provided legal and institutional and technical foundation from which financial mechanisms as well as certified technical competence required to achieve regulatory to address the significant disaster risk of existing compliance. Key elements of this regulatory vulnerable settlements. ecology include the general conditions for The report’s proposed reform agenda charts commercial development, the rule of law, security of tenure, and functioning building finance and closely interrelated strategic actions aimed at insurance mechanisms. reinforcing the regulatory capacity of countries at various stages of development. The following are Important institutions specific to the building the main development priorities suggested by the sector include accredited building professional report’s recommendations. education, professional societies and related codes of practice, accredited training institutions for 1. Orienting regulatory and governance /// the construction labor force, licensing procedures reforms toward compliance advice for building professionals, and quality control and support rather than just police processes for building materials. enforcement. Positive experiences from /// post-disaster reconstruction programs have A vigorous building regulatory demonstrated the potential of building reform agenda to support advisory services. Through such services, the Sendai Framework for building inspectors would guide builders to code-compliant and safer structures that meet Disaster Risk Reduction essential standards of safety (as in Central Java, New urban development between 2015 and 2030 Indonesia, after the 2006 earthquake, or Pakistan will exceed all previous urban development after the 2005 earthquake). This supportive and throughout history. Of the area expected to be advisory role, coupled with rigorous inspection, urbanized by 2030, 60 percent remains to be built, should be institutionalized as general practice primarily in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.8 under normal pre-disaster conditions. 05 06 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE 2. Developing the capacity of national and /// the potential of easing the burden of building subnational institutions. A coordinated /// permitting procedures on local governments. effort toward disaster risk reduction should Modern compliance tools to facilitate this address the need for adequate funding, staffing, process include improved information and and execution necessary to implement building communications systems for risk management, and land use regulation at the local level. This building practitioners’ certification, private requires specific support for training building third-party accreditation to provide review and officials as well as funding to ensure appropriate inspection, and the use of insurance mechanisms compensation. It also demands parallel efforts to augment building control. Moreover, in the development of building and planning numerous experiences in the field demonstrate education, financial and insurance mechanisms that transparency and procedural justice result for the management of risk, and public in greater effectiveness of regulation and understanding of the importance of safe siting compliance; both can be implemented through and construction practice. small, incremental steps. These steps typically include measures that reduce arbitrary discretion in planning and building permit approvals. Such 3. Focusing on creating building standards /// measures also serve to expand the disclosure appropriate to the poor and vulnerable. of information related to technical and /// Low-income and lower-middle-income countries administrative requirements. have the least capacity to cope with disaster losses. Where regulations are unknown, unenforceable, or excessive, most people tend A programmatic approach to disregard them, especially the poor. The to catalyze investment in benefits of a safer built environment should be regulatory capacity accessible and affordable for the poor. An open participatory process with representation from Priority 3 of the post-2015 Sendai Framework for all relevant stakeholder groups is necessary to Disaster Risk Reduction calls for a coordinated ensure regulatory provisions that represent effort around rehabilitation of building codes and the values and resources of the community. standards. It acknowledges the need for a localized Consistent with this approach, support should and calibrated approach with a focus on vulnerable be given to measures that improve security of settlements, irrespective of the broader income tenure and reduce the cost of entry to the legal category of the country. land and housing markets. Successfully reducing risk in the most vulnerable areas will considerably depend on how other 4. Promoting innovations for effective /// development initiatives succeed in helping the building controls. Experience over the past 20 /// poor access better and safer housing and essential years suggests that administrative simplification services. The proposed Building Regulation for and similar measures can reduce regulatory Resilience Program, outlined in the last chapter compliance costs. With appropriate safeguards of this report, will create synergies with related in place, jurisdictions with high levels of disaster programs. These programs include upgrading of or chronic risk should be able to leverage informal settlements, affordable housing projects, private sector technical resources to expand housing finance, land development and land use the qualified workforce available for regulatory policies, regularization initiatives, and post-disaster implementation. This approach also holds reconstruction programs. Executive SUMMARY FIGURE I.1 — Building Regulation for Resilience Program Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 National Level Legislation Building Code Developement Local Implementation Knowledge Sharing and Institutions and Maintenance and Measurement Country-level interventions The proposed program has four components: which will be based on code-compliant practices, for all elements of the building sector. Component 1 - National level legislation /// and institutions. Activities under Component /// Component 3 - Local implementation. /// /// 1 will establish or improve national legislative Activities under Component 3 will focus on the frameworks responsible for mandating the practical administration of the local building construction of safe buildings and enabling the department. This will include managing the construction process to proceed efficiently. These core functions of building technical assistance, activities will be based on locally defined priorities. plan review, site inspection, permitting, and Additionally, financial investment will aim to fund enforcement, with the goal of facilitating national hazard mapping programs and to expand voluntary code compliance. Advisory activities the capacity of central authorities. will give priority to providing outreach services to informal sector builders in order to expand Component 2 - Building code development access to the benefits of the building safety and /// and maintenance. Component 2 will support regulatory processes. Direct investment in local and /// the introduction of locally implementable building municipal building departments will fund building codes, including the adaptation of national department staff and inspector training, specialized model codes. It will help to establish the basic equipment for plan review and inspection, data institutional capacity to develop, adapt, and management, information and communication update appropriate standards of construction technology (ICT) applications to facilitate efficient through participative and transparent processes communication with clients, and training of at the national level. The criteria for evaluating external building practitioners. and improving vulnerable existing buildings will be a particular focus. Direct investment will Component 4 - Knowledge sharing and /// involve the funding of materials testing facilities measurement. Component 4 will provide an /// and equipment, training of staff, research into international focal point for exchanging experience safer local construction methods, and funding of and innovation related to building regulatory programs to accredit product-testing laboratories. implementation. This component will develop and Finally, this component will support the broad maintain common tools for assessing regulatory dissemination of regulatory documentation and capacity, effectiveness, and efficiency; carry the delivery of educational and training programs, out diagnostics, risk audits, and evaluation of 07 08 BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE regulatory system capacity; and develop specialized Endnotes standardized tools for assessment and rating purposes. The evaluations carried out under this 1 UNISDR 2012. component will track progress at the country 2 UNISDR 2015. and local levels. They will also serve as the basis 3 UNISDR 2015. for documenting good practices and identifying 4 Munich Re, NatCat Service, 2013, http://www.munichre. opportunities for assistive intervention. Overall, com/en/reinsurance/business/non-life/georisks/ natcatservice/default.aspx. this component will serve as a center for global 5 Kenny 2009. resources and documentation on the topics of 6 World Bank 2014. building and land use regulation for disaster and chronic risk reduction. 7 Bilham and Ambraseys 2011. 8 UNISDR 2015. A call for action 9 Yanev 2010. 10 World Bank 2013. The world will witness the construction of 1 A complete list of references may be found in the Building billion new dwelling units by 2050. Much of this Regulation for Resilience report. growth will take place in cities with weak capacity to ensure risk-sensitive urban development. The international community must act now to pursue more effective approaches to land use management and building regulation. Regulatory capacity development in countries and municipalities with high levels of risk can ensure that future construction and urban expansion will be located on safer sites and will be built to protect population health and safety. Building regulation can work as a catalyst to leverage the total investment in building and infrastructure toward greater safety and security. By implementing building regulation and supporting active compliance, the proposed Building Regulation for Resilience Program can accelerate the application of current scientific and engineering understanding to a safer built environment. Building and land use regulations have proven the most effective tools for risk reduction in the developed world. For a range of reasons, many low- and middle-income countries have not successfully employed these tools. With the initiation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015- 2030, there is now an opportunity to act, armed with extensive experience and new approaches. O ver the past two centuries, effective building and land use regulation have dramatically reduced incidences of urban conflagration and epidemic disease. In the developed world, such regulation has resulted in successful risk reduction and hazard response adaptation. However, disaster risk reduction strategies for low- and middle-income countries have largely ignored building and land use regulation. Furthermore, experience has demonstrated that the simple transfer of building codes from highly developed to developing countries is often counterproductive. A review and analysis of regulatory experience must be better applied to the creation of regulatory capacity in developing countries. Knowledge must be appropriately adapted to local conditions and incorporated into methods of sustainable regulatory implementation. This publication provides an analysis of available evidence to identify practical measures for increasing the effectiveness of building code implementation. Focusing on low- and middle-income countries, the authors argue for increased investment in functional building regulatory and governance systems for disaster risk reduction, while advocating a practical reform agenda for global collaboration. The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) is a global partnership that helps developing countries better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards and adapt to climate change. Working with over 400 local, national, regional, and international partners, GFDRR provides grant financing, technical assistance, training and knowledge sharing activities to mainstream disaster and climate risk management in policies and strategies. Managed by the World Bank, GFDRR is supported by 34 countries and 9 international organizations. WWW.GFDRR.ORG